mobile_artifacts_pruneDelete old or excess mobile artifact files by setting max age or maximum count, with dryRun preview to avoid unwanted removal.
Delete old or excess artifact files by maxAgeMs and/or maxCount. Use dryRun to preview.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dryRun | No | ||
| maxAgeMs | No | ||
| maxCount | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dryRun | Yes | ||
| deleted | Yes | ||
| retained | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds that dryRun previews (useful), but omits whether deletion is permanent, whether combined criteria are AND or OR, and what maxCount=0 or maxAgeMs=0 means.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and criteria, with the dryRun preview tip second. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a zero-required-parameter destructive tool this is nearly complete, missing only the AND/OR combination semantics of the retention criteria.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does name all three parameters' roles: maxAgeMs for 'old', maxCount for 'excess', and dryRun for 'preview'. It stops short of stating units or default behavior, so it is good but not complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (delete) plus resource (artifact files) and the controlling criteria (maxAgeMs and/or maxCount), which clearly separates it from the read-only sibling mobile_artifacts_list. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the action and scope are unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
"Use dryRun to preview" gives one actionable usage hint, implying the tool should be previewed before committing. However, there is no guidance on when to prune vs. simply listing artifacts, no prerequisites, and no note on how the two criteria combine.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.